Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

If you prevent a woman from marrying a woman, but do not prevent a man from marrying a woman, you are discriminating based on GENDER!
If you prevent a man from marrying a man, but do not prevent a woman from marrying a man, you are disrimination based on GENDER!
Neither of the above are dealing with sexual choice, they are dealing with discrimination based on gender, which is a violation of the laws of the nation and constitution.

 

Why should some religious nuts, be able to prevent other religious nuts from performing a marriage rite for gays. If any minister/priest/preacher wishes to marry gays it is religious discrimination to prevent them from doing so.

 

So, according to you, slavery IS a fundamental right since its history goes back thousands and thousands of years? Hmmmm?

 

Men and women are treated identically under DOMA; neither may marry a
person of the same sex. DOMA therefore does not make any “classification by
sex,” and it does not discriminate on account of sex. Singer, 11 Wn. App. at 259; see Baker, 170 Vt. at 215 n.13; Dean, 653 A.2d at 363 n.2 (Steadman, J.,concurring) (concluding it “stretch[es] the concept of gender discrimination to assert that it applies to treatment of same-sex couples differently from oppositesex couples”).
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

 

IIRC your arguments are in favor or removing government from marriage, that is different from saying that heterosexuals should be allowed to marry while homosexuals cannot.

 

What silliness you babble on about. There was never a fundamental right to slavery.

 

This is too much, ignored for cause!

 

If you removed all the straights in the world, gays could still repopulate the world. Either from un-enjoyable heterosexual sex or through modern science----ain't reality and science wonderful..??

 

I will laugh.

You said:

I replied:

Meaning that mentioning state constitutions is, in fact, the ignorant position you will now need to wallow in, as you replied with irrelevancy.

Your argument was "the U.S. Constitution." I pointed out that the U.S. Constitution contains no such prohibition. You then attempted to use state constitutions to address an argument relevant to the U.S. Constitution.

Ignorance, thy name is dixon.

 

Irrelevant. The US federal constitution trumps all state constitutions, and disallowing gay marriage violates the federal constitution.


EDIT: Doh, BullsLawDan beat me to it.

 

blacks and whites are treated identically. neither may marry a person of a different race................

see where your argument fell apart?


and I love it when you quote state courts for your arguments. You still haven't learned the very basic 6th grade civics lesson that FEDERAL>state

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I'm in favor of gay marriage.

 

Yet, dixon keeps repeating that same old argument, as if it actually applies.

 

I haven't read all 21 pages of this thread and I probably won't, but here I believe is a decent secular argument against gay marriage. I personally support gay marriage, so in this case I'm simply acting as the devil's advocate. If homosexuality is a choice rather than something one is born with (which has nothing to do with religion), then allowing gay marriage will encourage more people to become gay, and then the population will shrink to the extreme. But as I said, this is not what I personally believe, but it's a possible argument that doesn't necessarily involve the religious reason of "it's just not right".

Also, this one might be more on the religious side but also makes sense. If gay marriage is allowed, then who's to say other things won't be allowed? It could creep on the way to pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc.

 

First off , a marriage is expected to produce babys , kids , children...

and anything that joins 2 people together in matrimony should reflect that .

if two people of the same sex wish to co-habitate , that is their business , and none of mine ...

just don't call it a marriage , because it's not.

 

you might have a point if the ability/intention to procreate was a requirement in order to get married. since it's not, your argument doesn't apply.

 

You would be correct if procreation where necessary to marry. However, since it is not, your argument hold no validity.

 

Your argument fails in a point. Homosexual marriage only will do it, homosexuals. And marriage during the history has changed of meaning many times.

 

With all respect , Osiris , my post is as valid as yours , even more so ...

procreation is an animal instinct borne out of lust to perpetuate the species. .

no marriage necessary , although some animals do mate for life ...

One needs to understand the canons of marriage to understand the difference between animals mating and marriage ..

They are quite similiar , but different as night and day ...

and if you have a difficult time understanding that , then try typing a response to my post using only your toes ...

 

We are not animals, we don't have mating cycles. We are not simple minded beasts.

Marriage is not cannon. No one has a patent on marriage, certainly not religion.

Obviously you have a difficult time understanding marriage, it appears simple things fly past you, like capitalization.

 

I understand you are playing Devil's advocate, but the examples of creep you give are absurd as none of them include the element of a consenting partner. They are not relevant concerns on any level.
The other half of your argument makes the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, which is certainly up in the air. But how that leads to an onslaught of new gay people I simply don't follow. You make no connection between the two statements, you simply arbitrarily link them. Nothing seems to swell the ranks of gay people. It is a normal state of affairs that a certain part of the human population is going to be gay through all time and all cultures.
The Devil needs a better effort to make any traction with these weak arguments.

 

That basically sums up the best arguments against the "slippery slope" mindset.

 

Why are you going back 10 posts to what I said earlier. I was responding to your claim

even put "the Constitution" in quotation marks. Good GOD man dig DEEP for some shred of integrity. Marriage laws are a state matter. The US Constitution requires equal protection of the laws